At least you have the health plan now that will not cancel your coverage> I wish you to recoved fast.

And now you have the "health care" plan in place that will likely decide you're too expensive to treat. It's the same plan that will ensure you can't go directly to a specialist, but must always first get the recommendation from a general practicioner. Welcome to the nightmare that is socialized medicine.

I agree. Four years is a short time to assess and address issues that are 40 and 50 years in the making. Loss of manufacturing jobs and marginalization of unions began many years ago. Transitioning from a production to service industry country has had years of growing pains. Poverty in America makes it impossible to advance in our social structure. Personally, I benefit from the ACA in several ways. My 21 year old has health insurance and as a cancer survivor, I don't have to worry about being denied coverage. This was a worry during my husband's 8 month unemployment in 2009-2010 when I could not let my insurance lapse. My family was able to take advantage of the Administration's program with cobra where we only had to pay 35% for our insurance. It was still $600 a month instead of $2000 but it was a huge help. Despite the recent crisis over this crazy film, I feel that the world looks at our country as more sane, less reactive than we were in the early 2000's.

Reverend, you believe God wants government to care for those in poverty or "limited means"?

Does God give us a definition of "limited means"? At what point is someone's means sufficient to provide for themselves?

Didn't God give us all the free will to choose for ourselves who we will and won't help? Isn't it God's place to judge us, and not yours, or government's?

Your outlook is frightening.

The answer to your question is NO, the poor are worse off now than they were 4 years ago.

Replying to Jaycen who thinks my outlook is "frightening." I believe indeed that God calls us to what some have described as a preferential option for the poor. If we are all God's children, then surely we have a responsibility to care for one another. You may choose for whom you want to care. I choose to cast my net wider.

Rev Killoran:
Indeed all God's children deserve care.
So you should know that "care" does not include child-care.
Care ends when God's children Fly off on their own.
I am afraid the kind of "Loving care" that God meant is not equal to the "materialistic" care that our New Liberal Party preachers.
Living in poverty should exclude every one of God's children that "have a CELL phone". (that's for starters!)

Obama is NOT all that. Why? He is a New World Order Demoncrat & has continued Pres. Bush 2's poicies of war, placing Americans deeper in debt, giving the money as foreign aid, etc., continuing the bombing of 4 nations and bombing 2 additional countries & more. Sources, these are from Liberal & Libertarian websites, not conservative: http://usahitman.com/wbdwodum/ .... https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=406417569423041&set=a.295632980501501.69785.263201580411308&type=1&theater....http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html....

‎"The best news over the last weeks is that the politics of pure obstruction and vitriol are played out. The American people are awake. They see that the Republicans have nothing to offer but the same plan that created the problems in the first place. Many of them are starting to realize that the biggest problems we face aren't unknowable forces of nature, but very familiar sources of obst(i)nance in the House and Senate. More than any time in the recent past, Americans seem to be willing to look at what people are saying, rather than just listening to the tone."-Mark Sumner The Regressive plan to takeover America - What’s at stake in the 2012 election - http://youtu.be/D2m0uAYNnwY

1. The Center for American Progress is a leftist organization with zero credibility.
2. There is no "fair share" of taxes. Everyone pays; that is fair. The wealthy pay for everything.
3. Confiscate every single dollar of every American in this country and Obama's deficit still suffocates us all.
4. Government ain't your mama.

Everyone pays their fair share? Close to 50% pay nothing - how is that fair? Gas prices are at an all time high, food prices are skyrocketing, 1 in 3 families is on government assistance, true unemployment is in the double digits, our national debt has increased almost $6 trillion dollars, and we still don't know how much Obamacare is going to cost us (our personal healthcare costs have increased dramatically this year) - we can't afford the Obama way of life! Wake up and do some research!

Thank God for the anonymity of the internet, where bomb-throwers can launch unsubstantiated attacks without being required to reveal their identies.

Good job. You executed your mission perfectly.

Excuse me, if Obama wins, there will be even more households who pay no taxes. There aren't enough "rich" people to tax more to make even a small dent in our national debt. Good intentions from society need to be paid for somehow. They are finding in Europe that there is simply no more money to pay for all the government freebies everyone wants. The solution in France is to tax the rich at 75%. Does anyone see something wrong with that approach. I think more Americans, in fact every American household, needs to have a tax obligation. Then when government talks about raising taxes, there are more voices to be heard because it affects everyone! And on a final note, the best program for combatting poverty is a job. And, more jobs are created by small businesses than are created by big corporations and public sector jobs. So let's not be so hostile towards the job creators in our communities. Those business owners are the same people who are our neighbors and with whom we attend church and whose children attend school with ours.

Gerry Mac -investment income (dividends and capital gains) should be taxed at close to the same rate as our hard earned wages. Romney pays less tax than a middle class wage-earner, because guys like Romney don't earn their income, they live off investments.

Hey, it's fine that he can invest and live off it the way he does. More power to him. But he shouldn't get preferential tax treatment over the wage earner. If Romney and the GOP had their way, Romney's tax rate would go even lower.

I was asked once, “You’re a smart man. Why aren’t you rich?” I replied, “You’re a rich man. Why aren’t you smart?” ~ Jacques Fresco

I don't blame you for not understanding the nuance that if I am doing well, someone who expected to see his holdings decline over time, but instead has seen them go up, then the economy at large is not doing better. It is probably not something the average Obama supporter, who probably works for the government, a non-profit, or is unemployed easily grasps. I will trump your quoting an obscure liberal ideologue with someone everyone knows. Einstein said the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same things wrong over and over. Who is voting for an abject failure again? Look in the mirror for the answer.

By the way, given the number of empty posts you have made here, please confirm that you are in the employ of the Obama campaign.

Well, lots of comments here...too many to respond to all. But let's start with the fundamental. Last weeks census shows that the top 20% have prospered while all other have lost income, and not just in the recent recession, but ever since GWBush took office. 2. The federal stimulus prevented a depression in which perhaps 20% unemployment would have occured. The Stimulus provided tax cuts to all working stiffs to keep people afloat and 1/3 went to state govt's to maintain services. Since the stimulus stopped, state and local govt's have laid off over 1.3 million people which is why unemployment is not dropping. MO among other states refuses to maintain services so spending drops, which means layoffs, and less income, less spending, lower sales, more layoffs, etc. Only the Feds can stop the spiral, which is what Obama tried to do. Slow recovery due to INADEQUATE stimulus. 3. Given near deflation prices we have little to fear in the immediate future from inflation. Once the economy recovers, interest rates will rise to normal levels, but increased govt revenue means paying down the debt (as in Bill Clinton's day) and therefore interest rates can remain reasonable. There is no need to go off the deep end here; if Congress resumes a rational problem-solving posture, we can recover and resume growth.

Jim, Paying off government union workers is not a stimulus. It was a gift Obama gave to his supporters who had negotiated usurious contracts with Democrats that proved unsustainable. Your statement assumes the Keynsian theory is correct. If there was ever any doubt, the trillions that were pumped into the economy in the past four years should be evidence that it doesn't. You are correct that interest rates will go back up. Way up. The market will ultimately prevail. Trying to manage the economy will be about as successful as trying the manage the weather. The market will win. The result is going to be runaway inflation and interest rates you will hope you will never see again. As my bonds expire, I am going to cash, or short term instruments in anticipation of these much higher rates. I remember during Carter when people were buying 18% 30 year T bills. They lived a great life off them for many years. I intend to be in line for them. The country cannot afford more stimulus. The Fed is already at zero. The recent Fed announcement is for the benefit of the banks, not you. Meanwhile, we continue to borrow from China, which, itself is experiencing a slowdown. The only answer is to cut spending. Even cutting it to 2008 levels would be a huge help. You lived a good life in 2008, didn't you? what could that hurt. Also, everyone is going to have to pay higher taxes to pay this off. Not just the rich. Get used to it. Its time to pay the piper for years of excess.

Phil, religiuous organizations have no problems to provide health coverage including coverage for Viagra and Cialis. These are of course MEN's TOYS.

Remember that "birth control" meds are not just for birth control. They are hormonal medications that equalize hormonal imbalances that many women have. They are also used to manage Endometriosis, a very painful and damaging condition many women have. Denying "birth control" med coverage means denying these women coverage for a necessary medication for their very valid medical needs that have absolutely nothing to do with birth control. They are unjustly penalized.

Hormonal imbalances, Rockwood 25?

Many women have hormonal imbalances? Wow, how in the WORLD did humanity survive for 10's of thousands of years prior to birth control?

Oh...wait...you mean, many women have hormonal imbalances for a few days a month, and then things normalize? Right....okay. Yeah, every tax payer should be forced to pay for the fact that some women get "bitchy" a few days a month. That makes perfect sense.

Really?

I'm in manufacturing, and our industry leads the country by 3 - 4 months. Our business tanked 3 months before everyone else knew about the "housing crash".

Right now, no one's buying new production lines or equipment. I've been told by several customers that our projects are on hold, because their clients are waiting to see what happens after the election.

You can blame George Bush if you like. He was a terrible president. I don't like Progressives whether they call themselves Republican or Democrat. However, at some point, the guy WHO'S IN CHARGE RIGHT NOW has to take some responsibility. Things have stagnated or gotten worse. President Obama has continued or amped up every policy from the Bush administration.

So, if Bush was so bad, why is it cool when Obama does it?

Mike may be wrong about the economy, but he is the best logo artist in town.

You hit this one out of the park. Excellent article. You've covered all of the bases here. This is definitely a must read. Tweeted.

Yeah, thanks Larry. The question "Am I better off today" is a pretty childish one, and have never liked it.

Can you imaginethe individual answers to this question would have been in US history 1864, 1932, 1944...?

People probably had more sense back then not to ask.

This is too funny - had to share.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mitt-romney-ad-1/1417106/

Right on, John. It made me sick to vote for McCain, just like it's going to make me sick to vote for Romney. I'm tired of voting for "who's less bad", but nothing has changed in 236 years.

Unemployment in the fall of 2008 , close to 12.5 %, rose to an actual amount of over 15 %, the Middle Class lost 37% to 39 % of their investments ALL DUE to Pres. Bush 2 NOT ENFORCING then existing laws protecting investors. The crisis was purposely caused by Pres Bush 2 BUT the Super Rich 1 % of Americans saw it's income raise 6 % during the first 2 years of the trouble they caused.

Dear GHutch, most of other developed countries actualy do respect USA again just because of the end of Cowboy diplomacy or what Mitt would do, i.e. shoot first and than shoot a wounded person again and later ask questions. That;s why we as a country are much better off today. There are though individuals that continue to struggle, but that is not a new phenomena of last 4 years.

“Those of us who believe in free markets and those of us who believe that in fact the whole goal of investment is entrepreneurship and job creation, we find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job.” ~Newt Gingrich\
This is not flip-flopping…Sept 9 “Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform.” (Meet the Press)
Sept 10: “Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety.” (Hugh Hewitt Show) This is lying!

Stand up for what you believe in.

23 million is a fake number, probably my wife is among them. She never was looking for a job. This is a pure GOP propaganda. What was this famous number in 2006, zero????

you remember a transportation bill that could create as much as 2 million middle calss jobs and was voted down by republicans in the Congress. Why do you blame Obama for that?

The empty suit with no core, no heart, and no consience . “My message is this – it’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe. Quit waiting for pundits or polls or super pacs to tell us who the next president or senator or congressman will be. We are Americans. We shape our own future. ~ Deval Patrick Even Fox News is fed up with Romney providing no policy details - http://youtu.be/4fZkdjvsLxI

Wrong Direction Video - http://youtu.be/pSAGR0arBUo

Dear wilma, with all due respect, what has your unfortunate cancer case has to do with Obama?

You shouldn't have to BECOME a great President. You should just BE one. If that were the case our economy wouldn't be were it is today.

I agree Postman. Obama has my vote as well.

That is true, we are lucky to have a sane democratic governor.

So you think Romney is honest huh? That's laughable. He's honestly a lying opportunist. Romney would dig up his daddy and sell his remains if he could make a dollar. Romney panders to whatever group he's talking to. He changes his positions more than he changes his shirts. Romney's business experience - let's talk about it.

Romney approached companies with a lot of cash on hand. He would then leverage that asset and load the company with debt. Before they knew it, they had to take their cash and pay the $60 - $350 million loan payments and Bain Capital fees. Romney's Bain Capital has walked away with 100's of millions while the company filed bankrupt. During the 19th century this was know as "robber barons." Romney bankrupted major corporation and outsourced jobs every year. Then, he took advantage of tax avoidance schemes to keep from paying taxes.

I'm glad to know that we have more wise people than idiots paying attention to the President Obama's record. I've included the links -
200 Obama Accomplishments with citations - http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Our country is 100% better off than we were 4 years ago. Thanks to President Obama he kept us from falling off the cliff. I remember how we were loosing over 700,000 jobs monthly and I know that we have been gaining jobs for the last 29 months.

What Romney spending cuts? Romney has no plan. His 59 point plan presented won't create 59 jobs.

Sonny, the Occupy Protestors were NOT formed to oppose the Tea Party. That's simply incorrect. Occupy believes that business is the problem with this country, and somehow believe that distruction, disruption & defacating on police cars is the way to make their point. The Tea Party is aware that the GOVERNMENT has screwed-up this country & believe peaceful demonstration & rallies are the way to get things done.
The Dems were the ones who strong-armed every American into the Fair Housing Regulatory Act, which history had already shown was a bounding failure. Then, when they were warned of what the economic result would be, they refused to fix it (or lose the incomes they were making from it - Obama, Frank, Pelosi & more) and made fun of those who warned them about it. The housing crisis WAS the work of the House, only it was dominated by those same Dems at the time, who by the way, made a killing (in UNTAXED income, mind you), all while crashing your economy.

You are worried about a man who has a lifetime of achievement. A man who created a huge company, created jobs, A man who attended the Harvard Law School and Graduate Business School at the same time and graduated in the top five percent (we still do not know where Obama graduated) etc. not being able to grasp foreign affairs when Obama had done nothing before moving into the White House? Why weren't you worried about Obama have zero experience at anything but community organizing? Every new President has a learning curve. Its the nature of our constitution. I will gladly trade Romney's need for a few internal briefings for jobs.

$ whois -h whois.pir.org romneyachievements.org
NOT FOUND

Is John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, better off? He destroyed an entire company. He put tens of thousands of people out on the street. His actions contributed directly to the global financial crisis and Great Recession. He sold the wreckage of his company to Bank of America, pissed all over his shareholders and employees, and walked away with his hundred million dollar salary intact. Is John Thane better off today than he was four years ago? He sure isn’t any worse off. Does he resent the thought of ending the Bush Era tax cuts? Does he resent his tax dollars going to help out the people he and his pals left destitute and ruined? Beats me. He doesn’t answer my email.

Is Grover Norquist better off today than he was four years ago? Are the Koch brothers? Is Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson? Of course they are, along with the rest of their Wall Street cronies. The stock market is higher now than at any time in history. If you’re rich, it’s been a damned good four years. Is Mitt Romney better off today than he was four years ago? Yes, he most certainly is – that’s one of the reasons he’d prefer you not see his tax returns. Is Paul Ryan better off? Do these millionaires and billionaires resent paying taxes and helping out the less fortunate? You don’t have to ask them, their opinions are a matter of public record

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html

Is Chuck Norris better off today than he was four years ago? He’s in one of the biggest movies of the summer, one of the biggest movies he’s ever starred in, for one of the biggest paychecks. I’d say he’s doing OK. How about Clint Eastwood? Is Clint better off now than he was four years ago? He’s got a brand new movie too. Is John Cusack better off despite his vitriolic hatred of Barack Obama? Is Jon Voight better off? Is Ted Nugent? Hank Williams Jr? Yes, they all are. Though to be truthful, none of these celebrities were doing particularly badly four years ago either. They’ve also made their opinions well known. They love to make movies about the working man, they love to sing the songs about the poor and unfortunate and the downtrodden, and they don’t mind taking your money - but they’re not real happy about giving any of it back to help the people they portray (with maybe the exception of Cusack, he’s mostly pissed that Obama isn’t liberal enough).

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html

How about Rush Limbaugh? Is Rush Limbaugh better off today than he was four years ago? Barack Obama is the best damned thing that ever happened to Rush Limbaugh. Obama made Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck millionaires many times over. If the two of them had any sense, they’d invest in their future by sending the Obama Reelection Campaign a cool million each. Is Anne Coulter better off now than she was four years ago? Hell that cadaverous bitch can’t sell her bilious books fast enough. Is Michael Savage better off? Do me a favor, point to one, one, conservative pundit screaming about doom and gloom and socialism (also, Nazis) that isn’t better off today than they were four years ago.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html

Is Sarah Palin better off than she was four years ago? She was a nobody, a hick chick from the sticks of nowhere Wasilla (trust me on this, I live here). The unknown big haired governor of a remote bumfuck state (trust me on this, I live here). Four years ago, nobody, including about three quarters of Alaskans, had ever even heard of Sarah Palin. In the last four years she quit her job – she had the actual luxury of quitting her job – at the apex of the financial crisis, she went from being hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to being an unemployed multi-millionaire. She’s got hundreds of thousands of enraptured fans hanging glassy-eyed on her every word. When she’s not touring the country in her Juggernaut Of Patriotic American Freedom, she flies from show to show on a chartered jet and has a nanny to wipe the drool off little Trig’s chin. She lives a charmed life, everything she touches turns to gold, she could sell jars of her own feces on eBay for piles of cash. Hell even her Wasilla Valley Trash hairdresser got a TV show out of it. Her kid came home from Afghanistan with nary a scratch or bad dreams and married the prom queen. She’s a celebrity wherever she goes. She never has to work again, ever, if she doesn’t want to. Seriously, what in the pluperfect hell does this woman have to complain about? But complain she does, endlessly, snidely, bitterly. She never stops harping about how goddamned bad she’s got it and how it’s all Obama’s fault

Ironic isn’t it?

The folks who cry the loudest, the ones that complain most bitterly, are the very people who – if they were honest – would have to answer the question “are you better off than you were four years ago?” with a resounding “Yes! Hell, yes!”

The problem is, for them, they’re just not better off enough.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html

Are we better off? As a people, as a nation, as the world? In a word, yes. Not great, not where we’d all like to be, but better.

There’s still war, and violence, and terrorism. Are we better off in that regard? I think that question is best answered with the question asked by Senator John Kerry at the recent Democratic National Convention, “Ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off than he was four years ago.” Are we there yet? No, not if the recent events in Libya and Egypt and Yemen are any indicator. Will we ever be there? Probably not. Are we better off than we were four years ago? Yes we are. Ask all the troops that aren’t dying in Iraq right now.

There’s still poverty and hunger. There’s still too few jobs and the economy is still not strong enough. But it’s getting better. It’s getting better every day. Is it better for everybody? No. Certainly not. And it would be foolish and crass to say otherwise. It’s still damned hard for a lot of folks. And there is still a long, hard way to go.

But it isn’t going to get better if everybody keeps focusing only on themselves

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html

And it for damned sure won’t ever get better for you, personally, if your answer to the question depends on your political party.

Now, more than ever, we need to remember the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

We need to stop asking if you’re better off, am I better off, and start asking what we can do to make things better.

For all of us.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html
Together.

Is Franklin Raines better off?
Is Warren Buffet better off?
Is George Soros better off?
Is AIG better off?
Is Goldmann Sachs?

See, some folks are great at pointing out certain facts, but seem to always refuse to ask "how?" or "why" they happened.

It's like blaming Mitt Romney for moving his money or business out of this country. The reasons for it never come into play.
Just like THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of businesses, he did those things in response to tax & regulation increases, along with NAFTA.
They blame de-regulation (but apparently can't recognise that de-regulation can only happen AFTER overregulation).
They forget the Fair Housing regulatory act or don't understand the results.

Always blaming others for reacting to the results of their failed politics. Then using those results as a reason to implement more of the cause.

How does John Thain still make a salary from a company he no longer owns?
Either way, that was HIS company, HIS money.
You seem to have no truck with Franklin Raines, who made off with $970 million TAX-PAYER dollars, as a reward for crashing the ENTIRE housing industry. This after he recieved almost a $100 million dollar/yr in salary for more than 15 years, all paid-out in TAX-PAYER dollars.
It's always the same. Condemn others for what they do with their own businesses & money, but gloss over every single time when they steal or manipulate (re-distribute) TAX-PAYER dollars.
The Dow Jones was 14,000 in 2008, right now: 13,000.

We can play this game all day, but as far as Hollywood or the Music industry... You gotta be kidding me right? You mention a few, I'll give you the rest.

As for Sarah Palin, I don't know if she's better off, (and as Kennedy said, that isn't what matters) but Alaska is better off whether people knew who she was or not. (You should know, you lived there, but conveniently forgot.) She's a perfect example of how perception & reality don't often meet.

Kennedy was right about that. But creating dependents, then creating more trying to pay for them, was not his idea of making things better. His idea of making things better was also not taking over banking or student loans, or guaranteeing more profit for the businesses that are ruining our healthcare industry by forcing people to buy a their product. If you remember, he was about DE-segration, not segrating people into little groups to exploit. Or pretending to be "helping" the poor he created by taxing-away their jobs in the name of that "help", resulting in more people in need. JFK knew, that's like a snake eating it's own tail.

Today, it's how you get votes:
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
- George Bernard Shaw

JFK, unlike most of his family, remains an asset to our country. A bit overrated & has often been turned into kind of a matyr for a lot of people who believe completely differently than he did, but a great man, who deserves of everyone's respect.

For what it's worth, Dow Jones was about 8000 when Obama took office.

.... carry on

Yes it was RD, but you don't have the slightest clue as to why, no matter how many times I point it out to you.

I was just helping you out Devon. Didn't want you to go on for hundreds of words without the relevant facts -like you did on the corporate tax issue. I'm nice that way...sometimes, though don't count on it going forward.

Good grief, can you at least mix in a few facts occassionally. Even clowns like Limbaugh know you start with common things we can agree on - "the grass is green, the sky is blue, children are the future etc" before commencing with the onslaught of ridiculous propaganda, and truth-stretchers.

And you don't need to tell me why we had the economic meltdown that we still live with today, which imploded during the Bush administration...any more than you need to proselytize your many other crackpot theories.

.

Knowing 'how' & 'why' would benefit you.
For instance: Let's say Romney wins in November.
Then next year & the couple of years after, he is unable to repeal all of the hundreds of new tax increases & regulations that are set to be put in place during those coming years. When he does try to repeal them or warns folks about what will happen if they aren't repealed, the Democrats laugh, make fun, & call names trying to discredit him (like they've taught you to do), while we all suffer from the results, then the next election comes, and the economy still sucks or is worse than when he started, you will blame Romney & not those policies. You'll spew more hate and vote for more of the same economy ruining Democrats you always have because you only know to blame the guy "in charge", and nothing about the policies.
It's just like now. If you don't know the Fair Housing Regulatory Act, some simple banking laws & simple economics, then you will remain ignorant & will continue to make claims (that you don't understand), and attribute fault to the people who tried to stop these policies (because you don't know any better).
Look, pretend all you want, but I'm the one trying to help YOU. I don't need you to help me out. The time you spend trying to think of clever ways to name-call, I spend it doing research.

Devon, I'm aware of the deregulaton under Clinton (Larry Summers is an idiot). However, your childish conclusion that it was sole factor of the housing bubble is flat out wrong. It was part of it, but only a part. ACORN did not force Wall Street and banking industry to loan money and create CDO's and other "money grows on trees" schemes.

You really need to expand your "research" or at least look critically at information from far-right websites you so obvioulsly and oblivliously visit. i.e your MLK the staunch conservative, and the role of corporate taxation etc etc

It has gotten old, that whenever someone corrects your misinformation, you resort to crying about name-calling, when that is not the case. It really is an act of kindness to help you out and to keep you from making a bigger fool of yourself.

He insults us and refuses to apologize again!
Can Romney campaign be like Columbo - the detective? You remember him. The annoying pesky private detective that was asking the wrong questions and appeared clueless - yet Bam! case solved. Don't let this nitwit throw us off of our game. The game isn't over until the fat lady sings.
http://obamahopeandchange.blogspot.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-insult-another-no-apology.html

Look, the point of the whole thing, that some of you can't wait to dismiss, is that having the federal government take care of these people, whichever way they get aide, is the MOST EXPENSIVE WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY DO IT.
Whether you call other people names or not, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that you are asking for more needy, not fewer. You are even hatefully & innaccurately malitious to those that want fewer. Someone has to pay for it. You think that responsibility should fall on the people whose products these people can no longer afford to buy, and now have no reason or ability to hire them.
You think it should be those who now have to pay more for every one of those products to support those folks, who also now have to pay more for each of those products, forcing party-one to pay more for them twice.
You think it's ok to take away someone's opportunity to potentially retire in order to take care of those folks, and now have nothin to leave their children except the debt they were forced into, and that the government creating by trying to take care of those folks. On & on.
You aren't helping these people by giving them a fish, you've just been trained to hate anyone who wants to build lakes or teach people how to fish for themselves. So, pretend to care all you want, but your bright ideas are what's crippling these people, all in the name of taking care of them.
It's completely backwards & the ignorance it takes to think that way is almost sickening.

The illustration is simple and would add up if you were spending actual dollars. The only problem with this illustration is the debt was 12 trillion when he arrived. Now add interest on 12 trillion dollars worth of debt for 4 years and never pay anything on the original loan. Wow! That arithmetic is something else isn't it?

“The $12 trillion dollar Republican debt, blaming that on the Dems or Obama is the biggest political lie of my lifetime.” ~ Steve Stoft http://zfacts.com/node/141

As I've had to point-out before to you folks who get your politics from SNL, that was NOT Republican debt. It's obvious that no matter how many times it's pointed-out to you, you force me to do it again, this economic crash was set in place well before 2000. As a matter of fact, (as I will apparently need to point-out again) the Dems even scoffed at fixing it in 2001, 2003, & 2005. If you need me to, I'll show you the C-Span footage of it happening, AGAIN.
For the sake of argument, let's say it was the Reps fault, it still doesn't explain-away the $41,210 per second they continue to spend that they don't have. That's somehow the fault of those who are trying to fix it.
Makes for a good mis-direction or distraction, but it's just that, nothing more. You fell for it though, what the heck, others might too.

"As I've had to point-out before to you folks who get your politics from SNL"

I sure don't get my politics from SNL, although I do enjoy it for entertainment purposes. I suppose I'd put SNL in the same entertainment category as conservative radio programming

I do get my political views from a wide variety of sources, including several sources outside the US. I always try to understand the issues from multiple angles, including those that I do not necessarily align with.

It's my theory that looking at the issues from multiple perspectives helps one get a bit closer truth than just "conservative" or "liberal" sources.

Devon, would you be willing to share which sources you rely on to help frame your political views?

I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, but I have been known to address you when I write.... so the misunderstanding there is my fault.
I'm not a big believer in putting links on here or repeating someone else's opinion as my own. It may take some digging to find specifics, but sure.
Anything in particular?

I've actually been meaning to address our differences on the "carbon footprint" issue, but it became WAY more than 1500 words, and I didn't want to put all of it on here.
My approach on that is more about what is ignored & left out of the "comprehensive" or "irrefutable" science, and I would love to be able to address much of that information with you.
I know it's something that is close to your heart, and I believe you have as open a mind (most times) as can be found on here. I will warn you though, people are not supposed to look at the "carbon footprint" subject the way I do, mostly because it reaches well beyond that subject & has ties to many things, so expect some homework.
I'd love to figure out a way to get some of that info to you.

Devon,
If you like, you can comment with your views on climate change on my latest blog post at the Wildwood-Eureka Patch.

http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/fears-of-a-nervous-moderate-conclusion-part-5-of-5

Ok...

Which Obama office is your workplace?

Please destroy your meth lab and start reading.

Go to work and pay for corporate welfare, CEO pay, Iraq War, and gargantuan defense budget while you are at it.

It seems like you hate Obama meter is running at 99.99%. Everyone is laughing at you including Fox News.

I never said what you ascribed to me. The stereotype & assumptions you make could not be further from reality.

Defense spending-we spend more than double Russia & China pay on defense, combined. This attempt to be strong, makes us weak. China is laughing all the way to the bank.

CEO pay- I don't really aspire for it, but do well.
Yes, I would like to make more than I do. Maybe I should hire a political lobbyist, like the CEO's do -so I can make more $. I pointed out CEO pay because it's something we all pay for, just like taxes. Blue Cross' CEO made close to $13 million. And people wonder why health care costs are so high.

So yeah, I do fine. My household taxes are higher than what poverty level annual income is. But no thanks on trading places with the poor, because I have been there growing up. If I was poor, I would be like the most of them and working multiple jobs- much too busy to chat on this comment section with angry tea partiers. (...hmmm maybe I'd be better off being poor again, after all - less exposure to tea).

Yes the family did receive public assistance (college aid, reduced school lunch, social security survivor's benefits). It was just one part, along with all our hard work - that got my siblings and myself out of poverty - and on to become taxpaying citizens for a few decades now (at a higher rate of tax than Mitt Romney).

And guess what? Some of my awesome siblings are generally republican... At least in prior years...

Wake up and smell the coffee. Not all Americans are successful. There's that percentage of people who may be down on their luck for the moment. Even though they've fallen down, they don't stay down. They get back up. That's just the way it goes. Mitt Romney's dad was down on his luck at one time. He got government commodities and took advantage of other government programs designed for that purpose. Don't draw the wrong conclusion when you see someone using public assistance. In some places that's called being a snob.

I, myself, don't look down on those who recieve government aide to get back on their feet. I DO look unnapprovingly on those who make it their lifestyle. Which would you say there are more of?
I am FOR those people, both groups, which means, I dispise the practice of creating more & more dependents upon the system to gain votes.

In case you forgot:
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
- George Bernard Shaw

Example: the number of people who recieve food stamps in this country has doubled over the last 4 years. It is now over 47 million people. 47 million people who are being supported by those whose products they can no longer buy, and can no longer hire those recipients, so that they can someday buy their own food AND the products created by those who are supporting them, with their own money. You, however, want to effectively condemn both provider & consumer to harsh economic decline. Nice job.

The coffee is on, just waiting for you to wake-up.

I value freedom more than you do. That's why I speak out against the fear and hate-mongerers like you.

US being in debt to China, does not make us secure. Our war in Iraq makes us less secure. Much more so than any social spending that you have stereotyped so flagrantly.

Your hatred of Obama, I am willing to bet - was well before he took office. Otherwise you'd be directing commensurate rage at George W Bush's admin's corruption (Cheney) and failed policies (Iraq War, deficit spending, prescription drug bill, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of Wall St)

Many of these failed policies Obama, like a fool continued, with a big assist to the GOP Congress.

Romney is GWBush all over again. (without the cute aw-shucks demeanor).

(continued)
Criminally refusing to pass a budget over the last 4 years.
Allowing the President to now have the authority to send the US military after US citizens.
Saying you were going to end a war but starting another.
Taking credit for killing Osama Bin Laden, when you nearly jeopardized the entire operation by running-off your mouth about it.
Taking-over student loans (taking them out of the economy all-together) and attempting to collect them with SWAT teams.
Racially or socially segregating people into little groups to exploit while pretending to help them.
Claiming to "help" veterans - but cutting benefits for both veterans AND active soldiers - as well as cutting defense spending.
And a healthcare tax getting ready to take effect, that will be the largest tax ever implemented on the American people.....
on & on & on....

Regardless of where an individual's better or worse rating falls, the country is NOT better off, and is set-up to get worse.

Additionally, none of those people who tell you how much better off they are now than they were 4 years ago, can tell you how any of the above facts have helped them get there, or how they will effect them in the future.

Instead, they will ignore the facts & attack the messenger, or anyone who wants to fix it.

Sorry, Linda - you are wrong again. I do remember when this country used to be great. We had a period of egalitarian economic growth - the rise of the middle class. This period was typified by progressive tax rates, strong labor unions, and regulation of industry, Wall Street and anti-trust law enforcement to bust monopolies.

Back then it was respectable to work a blue collar job and your CEO did not make 600 times more than you did. Corporations were part of the community, rather than always figuring ways to export jobs and/or playing one jurisdiction off another for financial incentives.

Driving away all competition, creates Monopolies. Ask Bear Stearnes, or Merrill Lynch if they were bailed-out, or whether it was Goldmann Sachs (whose executives now hold a large percentage of appointed positions - a crime by both parties) & AIG.

Giving money to the companies you have chosen to succeed, and not to those you don't want to succeed, in order to pay CEO bonuses to the companies you've chosen, doesn't work either.

What do you plan to do? You always whine about CEO salaries & bonuses, yet you do it to support those who used YOUR money to pay those bonuses. Do you even listen to your own words, or do you just not realize that you are arguing against yourself?

You're misfiring on all cylinders. I'll let you ramble all you want now.

Before I go, just let me point out - the polls are not looking good for Mittens. You may have to find a way to cope if the billionaire donations to Romney (Cub's owner Ricketts just put $10 mill in the kitty) don't pan out.

Linda, I'm with you. Very well said.

The Dems are thanking you guys too, for scaring whatever independent voters towards them.

PaulRevere, I hesitate to reply and draw attention to the sheer idiocy of your comments. Romney did not deduct nearly 1.8 million in charity to make his claim of having a 13% tax rate work. If he would have taken that deduction, his effective tax rate would have dropped from 14.1 to 12.1 percent. It cost him about $270,000 in taxes. Technically, he can amend his return after the election and claim that deduction still.

If Romney's nearly $9 million in capital gain and qualified dividends were taxed at the same 28% that middle class wages earners pay, rather than the 15% low rate that goes to silver spoon-non-working millionaires - then we'd have another million to go towards reducing the deficit (you don't like deficits -do you?).

And what makes you think all charity goes back to society? His 2011 donation was almost all tithing to his church. So he needs that donation for Judgement Day insurance.

Only part of the Mormon Church spending goes to the "The LDS Church welfare distribution system" as stated in the wiki pages on their murky finances. Much of it goes into their vast Mormon Church Financial Empire. Have you driven out 40/64 west of 270 in the last few years? Lots of money spent on their Judgement Day scenarios.

Maybe the church should be taxed. off topic...but if anything tax that investment income like they do our wages!

RdBet:
One question---You stated "Romney did not deduct nearly $1.8mil in Charity"
Where do you get that number? His return shows $2.2mil in charity deductions.
Do you have some secret document showing his contributions were $2.2 +$1.8?

Corrections to lesson #1:

1) The IRS says:
"your deduction for charitable contributions is limited to 50% of your adjusted gross income, and may be limited to 30% or 20% of your adjusted gross income"
Revere wrongly says: "ZERO tax rate."
I say: Can't get there from here.

2) Revere says: "HIS TAX RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN 30%."
I say: IRRELEVANT. Anybody's tax rate would have been anything if you assume whatever you want.

3) Revere says: "ROMNEY PAYS THE HIGHEST RATES POSSIBLE FOR ANY TAXPAYER IN AMERICA."
I say: WRONG! See 4) below.

4) Revere equates charity and taxes.
I say: WRONG!

5) I say: this story isn't over. And won't be for up to 5 years. We'll need to see if Romney amends his 2011 return, and how he carries over any of their 2011 contributions to future years.

6) Revere says: "Not a one of you even come close to paying over 40% of your income back into society. "
I say: WRONG! Include state and local income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, and so on. And the way you define things, charity. It adds up quickly.

7) Revere says: "Charities can do much more for all of you, than our Federal Govt."
In some ways, I would agree. In other ways, I would not. But Revere said "all of you"! Why does he force his view on other people and not let them judge for themselves?

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#en_US_2011_publink1000229802
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#en_US_2011_publink1000229824

I first thought that Paul R's claim that "Mormon Church = Charity" was the most absurd thing that I've ever read until I came the claim that the "Mormon Church can do more for us than the Federal Govt".

Yea, like we want the Mormon Church deciding how to allocate societal resources. They have such a great history there.

I suppose there is a point that the Mormon Church can promote bigotry, sexism and racism where the Federal Govt can't. So, yes, if you are a bigot, sexist and racists, the Mormon Church is great place to send your money.

"Do you have some secret document showing his contributions were $2.2 +$1.8?"

Page 3 of the link below shows the Romney's 2011 (est.) Schedule A. Line 19 shows $4,020,572.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/romney-2011-estimated-1040.html

On the Romney 2011 tax return, he told his accountant's he needed to pay 13%+ so his prior claim of having paid that would be true. He did not take all the deduction he was entitled legally (and if you recall -Mittens said he would not be qualified to be president, if he didn't take all legal deductions...kind of funny.)

So he did not deduct about $1.8mill of charity to meet that mark. Forgoing a deduction only saved about $270,000 in taxes - because he's all investment income (generally 15%) and is not taxed on wages like the most of us.

It's all there, and sugarcoated.
http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure

Again, the large donations to the Mormon Church....what if it were to a Muslim temple, or Planned Parenthood? In PaulRevere's logic, it's the same as paying taxes.

It is impressive what the Church's have amassed financially around the world -like the Mormon church. If they would pay taxes we could reduce the deficit. People born with the silver spoon in their mouth, and living off investments -if they paid taxes at the regular rates as working people - we could reduce the deficit, and eventually reduce taxes for the rest of us.

Tax the churches? Excellent idea RDBet, JIm Wright wrote a blog post about that topic, and the mindset of many of the commenters here. You might appreciate his insights.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/catbox.html

Thanks for that link Larry...I got a kick out of this part ...

"But just for the sake of argument let’s say you’re talking about the Christian God, here’s something funny, those Ten Commandments? One of them is a prohibition against covetousness. Thou shall not covert thy neighbor’s (bleep) or wife or BMW. Since coveting stuff is really the whole entire basis of capitalism (seriously, capitalism doesn’t work unless everybody covets everybody else’s stuff. Everything else pretty much follows that, just FYI) I’m pretty sure God just outlawed free market economics.

Looks like God is a communist. Well hell, so now what."
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/catbox.html

No RD,
Coveting is what you are doing when you think rich people owe you more. You are coveting their gains. Running a business is not coveting. Penalizing them & taking from them to pay for your ideology (that has an endless record of wasting that money) is coveting. It's exaclty what you are doing when you think someone else deserves money that someone else has earned. The Bible & the Comandments are NOT against business. You are.

"what makes you think all charity goes back to society?"

What makes you think all tax dollars go back to society?

I've already wasted time responding to PaulRevereWhatever..(lol) - so that's enough giving creedence to kooks and their flat-earth/tea party arguments for one day. Deveon- If you feel so inclined, I refer you back the fallacies of your corporate taxation/unemployment argument that I so graciously corrected for you.

Sensible:
You are using an "Estimated 2011 Return".
It also shows a $20mil AGIncome. Why?
Did Romney underreport his actual filing?
(His Estimated 2011 was back in Feb 2012)
It shows an est. $4mil contrib, but so what. It's at least 20% of $20mil

Now here is your lesson #2
Amending returns can only be done for "errors"
Limited Contributions are "CARRYOVERS" to next year 2012. (carryover from 2011)
Limited Contributions ARE NOT ERRORS.
THEY ARE NOT AMENDABLE>!
If you are looking for the smoking gun Try reconciling why his income only was
$13.7Mil on the "ACTUAL FILED RETURN" vs. estimated $20mil.
So your whole hogwash (MADDOW) stories are debunked.

RDBET:
You cannot respond to my questions because you are "A programmed Robet"

TrollRevere - here's the answer to question on Romney's unclaimed 2011 donation deduction of $1.8-ish million. I'll admit, I didn't get it from a reliable source -I got it from Mitt Romney's webpage:
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt

" •Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
•The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
•The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years"

Whoa? wait? what? We are supposed to despise taxes. Mitt says he pays only what he legally has to and "not a penny more". He's adding to Big guvmint!

On July 29, 2012, Mitt Romney had an interview with David Muir of ABC News. Where he said,
"I don't pay more [taxes] than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president"

Maybe you ought to let the squirrels underneath that tri-cornered hat work this over for a while.

"You are using an 'Estimated 2011 Return'.
It also shows a $20mil AGIncome. Why?"

I don't know, you'd have to ask the Romneys and their accountants.

You asked about "some secret document", I answered that.

"Now here is your lesson #2
Amending returns can only be done for 'errors'"

We agree on something, finally. Though it has no bearing on my point, which was:
"This story isn't over."

"Limited Contributions are "CARRYOVERS" to next year 2012. (carryover from 2011)"

Only partially correct. I provided a link in my previous post for those who want to read what the IRS says, rather than accepting your interpretation of U.S. tax law.

"So your whole hogwash (MADDOW) stories are debunked."

Wrong. I haven't said anything incorrect in this discussion. You have. You made so many mistakes that I, for one, can't trust your conclusions.

Larry: You can substitute any charity in my comment.
any 501(c)(3) LocalCharity is better than our Federal government deciding who should get our money. The Morman church qualifies as 501c3.
The fact that you would denigrate any religious choices by anyone, is despicable.
Our Federal government should be for " All the people".
Not just the poor,needy, or Unions.
That is why the federal Government is constrained by our constitution.

I suggest you learn Article 1 Sec8---It says "Congress has the power to TAX in order to PAY THE BILLS OF THE United States".
It does not say PAY YOUR BILLS>

Sooo..Paul Revere. If Obama gave a $3 million dollar charitable donation to Trinity United Church of Christ, a local Chicago 501c3 (hint: Jeremiah Wright) -then Obama is being benevolent. You would say society is better served by such donations, than having federal taxes.

Suppose they form a private elementary school with that Obama donation, and teach children socialist marxist values and history from that angle?

By the way, Obama has donated 10s of thousands to this church. Imagine the noise and conspiracy theories from Fox News and right-wing if he donated 3 million to it. lol.

Think about it Paul....and the squirrels under ye' tri-cornered hat get busy again.

Someone has started off their day with a dose of happy.

I was just pointing out the mistakes in Mr. Revere's tax lesson. Do
you have any facts to add to the discussion?

Just because YOU don't know what Obama paid doesn't mean that the rest
of us don't: http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/13/is-mitt-romney-really-more-charitable-than-barack-obama/
That addresses Biden, too.

"NONE of us should be paying any taxes"

You're right. I'll just spend two years digging up the street in front of my house by hand in order to build a paved surface. I'll build a university in my back yard and hire some research scientists to develop new disease therapies. I'll walk all my bills to their destination and pay in goats, since there would be no mint, no legal currency, etc. Get your head out of the sand. If you don't like taxes and regulations and civilized society, Somalia is there for the taking. Didn't think so.

Dear Karl, congratulations and keep being hard working and optimistic

TheMissourian: Your statement 1) Welfare spending gets spent another 7 times in the economy.
Just for fun, please list the 7 times and places throughout the year.
(Strange? Nancy Pelosi made this exact comment)
Or do you want a check first , before we learn how it gets spent.

Hopefully, your list includes that "HARD WORKING EMPLOYED GROCERY STORE OWNER" down the street.
OK you can now start your list.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

It's called Velocity. Anybody on the right or the left with a basic understanding of money supply and economics will tell you the same thing. 7x. Right now, a typical dollar gets spent 7 times in the course of a year. Three years ago it was 11x. The the credit markets imploded. A dollar spent on welfare is a dollar that is guaranteed to get spent at least once, since the recipient is likely not in a position to save it. So:

1) Grocery store, 1/15/2013.
2) Checker's paycheck 1/22/2013.
3) Checker buys clothes 2/28/2013.
4) Clerk gets paid 3/24/2013.
5) Clerk goes to the dentist 6/17/2013.
6) Dentist buys lab equipment 9/8/2013.
7) Lab equipment maker pays someone to ship product 12/1/2013.

Do you have something against grocers, clothing retailers, dentists, precision equipment manufacturers, and transporters?

Congratulations! Missourian:
Wow! A Grocery Store --A Clothing store--A Dentist---Dental Lab Equip--A shipping company.

Very good!
Can you imagine all the taxes paid by each of those stores and Dentist.
That is how you get your next Welfare check, isn't it?
I bet those stores and dentists all built their offices and stores with welfare checks from you RIGHT? Or do you want to now tell us who built those Stores and offices.

I bet it was --THE GOVERNMENT from all the Taxes they collected from you.

Paul Revere, how do I say this? You don't understand economics at all. Do you understand, for instance, why interest rates are near zero? It's to discourage people from stuffing their cash in a metaphorical mattress (the bank) and force them to spend or invest in the economy. Same deal with welfare. There will always be a segment of the population that is unemployed (at least 5%) or unemployable. It serves no one well to have them begging, homeless, or committing crimes over bags of Cheetos. So put some money in their pockets, guarantee economic activity, and stabilize the situation. We're paying for it one way or another, either through increased crime rates, policing, homeless issues, etc. Welfare keeps it all on the grid and manageable. I don't know another way to put it. I mean, in a perfect world, if we all did and behaved exactly as we should, there would be no need for any of this. But that isn't how the world works. It's big, messy, and complicated, and every part of it is globally interconnected. There is no going back. If you can't or won't grasp that, then there's no point continuing this thread.

I love how everything goes down a slippery slope and leads to Harrison Bergeron or some other variant of totalitarian fascism. As if. Seriously, folks. Save the paranoid fantasies for the aluminum skullcap crowd.

Linda, I've already said that the yearly federal Taxes I pay on wages, are near what poverty level family Income is. You are saying I am better off poor and living large by trickery.

I probably pay more taxes than you - ya freeloader!

"Sensible cannot admit to using a February 'Estimated' 2011 Romney Return."

I said: "Romney's 2011 (est.) Schedule A. Line 19" up front, and in plain sight, I thought.

Did you not see my "(est.)", or not understand it?

You haven't answered my question. I was going to drop the issue but no doubt it would come back to haunt us. So . . .

Back to your point: "Sensible cannot admit to using a February "Estimated" 2011 Romney Return." Wrong.

And therefore your conclusion based on it is wrong. That conclusion was: "Therefore , all sensible calculations are wrong." Fixing that, we now have:
All of Sensible's calculations are correct.

I see how this works now :-)

Simmer down Linda. I'm just using the same illogic that you are.

Anyone that pays less than the $40,000 federal and state taxes than I do, I am able to call them a Freeloader.

Suppose a good working patriot like you pays $15,000 in taxes. That means you made a decent wage - well above poverty level. ...However, it would also mean I pay $25,000 more in taxes than you. Which is more of a spread than you would have over the poverty level person with no tax. It is possible that the fair market value of police, fire, military, and roads (to name a few government programs) is higher than the $15,000 in taxes you pay. So, are YOU a freeloader? Socialist?

By the way, I'm fortunate to be healthy, though I do take care of myself - and I don't make health insurance claims-even though I contribute premiums. If you make health insurance claims beyond premiums - then you are a freeloader. And perhaps a Socialist.

Also, I'm darn good safe driver. I pay car insurance and never use it. Do you?
Socialist - Et tu, Linda?

"massive wave of banking and insurance dereg that has been ongoing for over two decades"

Out of 176 comments so far, this is only the second to mention deregulation. Can anyone justify a company being able to reap all the profit without taking all the risk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

Really, Missourian? Retirees, unemployed, students - so you think that 8.1% (more like 20%) is a minority, 12.5M unemployed Americans is a minority. This includes 7.6% for adult men, 7.3% for adult women, 24.6% for teenagers, whites-7.2%, blacks at 14.1% and Hispanics at 10.2%. I guess blacks being at 14.1% is not important and another minority is the 75% of kids coming out college unable to find a job in their field. To you, Missourian, these are all a minority. Let's go further, there are 5M long term unemployed (27 weeks or more of jobless claims) - another minority according to you.

Let's go on, Missourian. The civilian labor force at 154.6M and the labor force participation rate at 63.5% both decreased. No big deal according to all the Socialists that want the jobless benefits to continue.

Linda. Slow down and reread what I wrote. I said there is a "minority of welfare abusers." You are attributing words and ideas to me that I don't endorse. Unless you think drawing unemployment after being laid off, or being a disabled retiree, or long term unemployed in a slow growth economy and needing food stamps, etc, is a form of welfare abuse, then the minority of people receiving federal assistance abuse it. There is no question the unemployment rate is out of hand. This is a problem that won't solve itself overnight, though. A huge number of the unemployed were previously employed in housing related fields during the years when people were buying second and third investment homes. Those jobs are long gone, and they are not the skills that will build this country's future, unfortunately. Conversely, there is a huge shortage of labor in STEM fields, but that requires years of training, an aptitude for analytical thought and experimentation, and hard core math skills. Would you propose cutting off benefits to the people who legitimately draw unemployment and other benefits because other people abuse welfare? When there aren't jobs or customers, there aren't jobs or customers. Cutting people off over an ideological difference is unethical, it's immoral, and if you believe in the principles of Christianity, Judaism, or possibly Islam (I can't comment as I don't know much there), just plain wrong.

cont'd from above.

When you speak of the 47% I referred to in regard to starting a business, you did exactly what Soclialists do, you downplayed their abilities. You think everyone is like you, you're motto is, "let's just live off the people that are working and have a business". It is apparent, you're not into controlling your own destiny, you're not into taking care of yourself and your family, you're not into making your own way. This confirms my thoughts about you, you are a Socialist. You don't believe in the exceptionalism, entrepenuership and ambition of Americans. You believe the same as the Socialist in the White House - you believe that America is not great, it is a handout nation filled with lazy people waiting for everyone else to take care of them.

I rest my case and I don't smoke so there are no extra costs paid for by my insurance company for lung cancer!!!!!!

I control the hell out of my destiny, thank you.

Christine:
Health Insurance is NOT the same as "Health Care". You don't need Insurance Company to pay your Doctor.
Today every American can just go to any Doctor and say , I want to pay cash.
Obamacare does not Buy you anything---It REQUIRES YOU to buy health insurance. If you do not --Your whole Family will eventually PAY A TAX Penalty when you file your Income taxes.up to $1,600 per year. (The amount will go up each year-Guaranteed)

MIKE:
"chances for Health Insurance are 100% for anyone that "Pays" for it."
Obamacare does not give you anything--It is a Tax on You, if you do not buy your own Health Insurance. Can't you understand that. It is NOT FREE.
Everyone has to buy their own Health Insurance. It is Mandatory. Starting 2014 ALL of You will have to buy it.

Actually, WORSE off,,,Food Prices, Gas Prices, Insurance Prices, Prescription Drug Prices are Up Up Up, etc. etc. etc.
Same Income!

Again, your inability to grasp basic economics is uncanny, Paul Revere. Why don't you itemize all the provisions of ObamaCare (aka Awesome) and speak to the specific ways each will capsize the economy or cause harm. Because based on what I have read, it won't. Now quit whining.

Ride on Paul Revere,,,You are Right On,,,Don't even reply to Mr. Know It All(the Missourian)he reminds me of the TROLLS on FaceBook

Yea Missourian, shame on you for knowing facts and all.

Can't you just stick with making crap up like some of the others commenting here? We sure wouldn't want facts to get in the way of our beliefs now would we?

Did you receive the rebate from BCBS of Missouri this year, I did. What? Bc. of Obamacare. And my premium increased by $.98 this year. Why? Bc. of Obamacare. Nough said.

A prediction = GOP fear how much the premiums are going to increase is not a FACT, it is speculation at best. So what facts are you talking about?

Mr Caldwell: You are indeed a man of few words.
You just "Made My Day".
B/T/W I see Reagan along the trail many times.! He does love to "Ride"

In 4 more years, the question will be "There you go Again".

30 years of conservative policies? Those are claims, not facts. Like the media makes, and you believe. It's funny how you could say that, you'd have to forget about 15-18 years of that to blame anything on conservative policies. I'll let you provide a list if you like, but the Dems are behind the economic crash over the last 20 years, almost single-handedly, laughing at those who warned them about the results of what they were doing, with your applause. They used your children, special interest groups & hand-outs against you at every turn to get it done. That's the only thing they have succeeded in (other than controlling the media), and they couldn't have done that any better had they been TRYING to screw things up. They are either as smart as you say, and ARE trying to screw-up the economy, or they are as innept as I say.
If the impoverished (another group that is exploited) vote for you, it makes sense to create more. Which side benefits from these practices.
I have asked on here repeatedly for people to tell me, including you, how big government has EVER fixed anything, and where in the world it has ever worked for the good of the people? All I get is crickets...
Larry, I believe you enjoy research, I believe that at face-value, you are excellent at it, however, from what I see, you tend to fall just shy of cause. Maybe if we can figure a way to transfer some information, we'll actually look at some policies, ideologies & things that actually happened & the results.

Devon, it's my view, and yes, it's a view, that there is a 20 to 30 year lag between the implemention of significant policies and their impact on society. We are realizing the consequences today of decisions and polices made under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Similiarly, we won't fully realize the impact of Obama's policies, especially health care and the investments made under the stimulus plan, until 20 years from now.

Yes, but you compared Reagan & Obama based on 1 tax, income tax on individuals. To do that, you have to forget, and completely dismiss the thousands & thousands of new taxes & billion dollar industries - ex: tech industries (paying more than anyone in the world & more than they ever have), since Reagan. The list of differences, in different ways is immense. Looking at one number is as misleading as a Democrat. You want to look at how much individuals paid percentage-wise, you'd have to include sales taxes, property taxes, capitol gains, the number of new mandates of municipalities (as in St Peters, causing increases in each of those taxes), you'd have to look at the unemployment rate, the condition of business & their tax-increases that get passed-along through price increases (inflation), the number of new sources of government income.........

See, that's my problem with most Democrats. Their heart is in the right place, but everything is face-value & nothing is connected. Like with Fair Housing, it sounds like a good idea, it sounds like they care about people, and they may, but the policies, in the long-run, are detrimental to everyone, and not only don't work, but made things worse. Then when it's pointed-out, that it didn't work, they want to try & "take care" of the previously "in need" and the new "in need" population they've created, in the same ways that got them there.
It's apples & rhubarb, and again, it brings us back to giving a fish versus a pond.

PS - the employed have more of an ability to pay taxes than those who are unemployed.

Linda,
Go back into your tax records and check your tax rate under Reagan.
Now, check your tax rate currently.

Unless you didn't have any taxable income during the Reagan administration, you'll find that you paid much higher taxes then you do now.

Now, please tell me why Obama is a thief compared to Reagan?

Simmer down Linda. Control your hate lady, it does you no good. I didn't expect you to take my word on my income taxes paid. However, with the assumptions your were making and name calling, I figured you had it coming. Yes, our tax returns for 2011 show over $40K in taxes.

Whatever your taxes are, and mine are - I can guarantee people pay more than you, and receive less benefit from govt spending than you. We pay for more soldiers than you do, so you can have the freedom to sit on your rump there spewing hate about poor people (a category in which many soldiers fall).. So ...there ya go Freeloader Linda.

Another subject we can touch on if you like.

Larry:
Tax rates were over 70% when Reagan took office.
Please!
These were deductible then, Not deductible today:
(From memory , so my amounts might be a little off).
1) full 100% medical
2) Sales taxes and ALL INTEREST (even car loans & Charge account interest)
on everything you buy was deducted.
2a) Municipal taxes paid on phone bills and heating bills were deducted.
3) No limits to 12-31st investments in cattle-feeding programs.
Taxpayers deducted millions in year end investment shams.
4) There were no College credit programs, credits for child care,credits for buying homes or autos.
5) social security taxes were paid on income only up to $30,000. (rates3%)
vs. today rates of 7.65%
6) No payroll medicare taxes like today.
7) unlimited Contribution Deductions.
8) No Alternative minimum taxes now imposed

There are literally thousands of differences in how returns were filed and what deductions were taken. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE RATE.
TAX history is very important to your being qualified to debate "then and "now".
As a matter of fact, It's impossible to equate pre- 1986 tax to now, because 1986 reformed the whole tax-code.

Paul,
this is just a tip, take it or leave it. Don't rely on your memory for tax data from 30 years ago. Instead, look it up. I generally use Taxpolicycenter.org.

Everything you quoted is wrong so I won't bother with responding.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

Now now Linda. That's no way to talk to a successful capitalist like me. Maybe if you worked harder, spent less time hating other people....

Wow, I'm just coming in at the end here but a few things are evident. One, is that there are people who do not understand what socialism is. Second, that anyone who states they only "care about is my country and my children and their future" has limited abilities of empathy and community connection. Our country works on a social contract, we all contribute based on ability and we all benefit. Those that build businesses make profits by using the work force we all educate, move their goods and services on infrastructure we all paid to develop (like roads) and use services like police and fire departments for protection - all that we pay for. In return, those business owners have a responsibility to pay back their share. My issue with Romney is his refusal to do so by sheltering his money in off shore accounts. He refuses to pay his fair share. Money that could be used for tornado or flood relief for all our children, medical care of our servicemen or to pay down the debt. To scream "socialism" because you are expected to participate in a system that you take from, and benefit from, is irresponsible. I also think your perception of those receiving "handouts" is dated. I see that some posters have tried to point out the numbers to you but I know it is easier to just think of anyone in need as "them". Try listing all the benefits you receive as a citizen instead of listing all you feel "others" unfairly get. It might help your disposition and anger.

Joan, out of curiousity: Do you participate in social security and medicare?

Joan, please don't forget on Marxists, Maoists, Fascists, Alquedians, the Tigers, RedKmehrs, Gandhi, St.Louis Rams ---> receiving money from NFL in spite of being the worst team around, and I could go on. All Comis.

What are the differences between Obamacare and Romneycare for the USA?

Oh they're, their, there, Joan. There Will Be Mud. Have you seen that movie? It's not as good as 2016 but you might give it a try.

Thank you for once again pointing us to the truth from reliable news sources like Facebook with your charming ellipses made of commas.

There are Hindus, Muslims, Buddists, Christians, Atheists, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Catholics, Jews, and Taoists supporting both candidates I'm sure.

So what? Is it bad to be Muslim, Joan?

You don't have to look hard to find people that fit into your stereotypes.

It wouldn't be too hard to find bratty trust funders born with the silver spoon who have every thing in life handed to them, and think their crap doesn't stink...... Oh look, I see an ad for Mittens.

I don't look at things like The Blaze. However, I'm not surprised that you do...a freeloader like you needs to find other freeloaders to blame things on.

Linda, I attended Tod Akin's event and we were all given peanuts and Bud light, but I am not voting for him. I have a daughter to protect from guys like him.

Clutch my pearls! Linda's TAX DOLLARS are going to buying phones for black people in Ohio! You're right, Linda. This is the single cell phone video that proves everything.

I need to go be outraged.

Oops. I am Muslim and support capitalism and the Republicans. More of us then you care to think of. Since when does religion enter into our form of government. Oh, I am retired from our military also. And yes, I am white. Also live in Brentwood. Shocking isn't it?

Joan, not only do I "pay into" social security, I'm helping to underwrite your payments right now. Quite a bit.

Glad to do it. You're welcome. It's my duty as a good American, and I think the Social Security program is a fantastic social contract. It's also an example of Socialism.

You are Socialist. Don't be alarmed. I'm sure your grandchildren will still love you.

Another alarming thing: Medicare. It's socialized medicine, Joan. Again, deep breaths. You're a big old Socialist. And that's OK. Come to terms with who you are. Hiding in the closet will only make you miserable.

@Caffeinated...I am not a Socialist,,,I do not believe in taking from the rich and giving it to the poor,,,Social Security and Medicare were not a choice of the people,it was mandatory payments to the government,,,it is not a "hand out", it was monies earned and allegedly put into an account to earn $$$ NOT to take out and spend by the politicians at their discretion...I am not a Socialist, only a Lamb who has been led to the Slaughter!
Nuff Said,,,other more important things to do, like educate my grandchildren of the up and coming demands that are to be made of them by 'daddy' government,,,

Social Security = socialism.
Medicare = socialized medicine.

These are facts.

Every time you cash your Social Security check, Joan, you are affirming your Socialist tendencies. Every time you visit the doctor or get a prescription under Medicare, you are participating in socialized medicine.

So, is this the place where I am supposed to counter with examples of unhinged, slightly to extremely deranged, extremist right-wingers now?....

Thanks to Linda etal, I don' have to go looking to the weblinks - y'all can just scroll up and down this page.

Yes, I do. Just what do you know about it, very little I would bet. Being called a liar is very minor, is that the best you can do. True Islamists are a very peaceful people. The radicals are the ones that are false. Yes, I did kill many over the years I served. Just what have you done to deserve to live here. Did you know, in the Qu'ran, thet Christians and Jewish are equal and respected. Have you only knowledge of the false books, not the true Holy book. Did you know in teh true Qu'rqn that the old and new testaments are included? Dumb, are you not. Good bye, enough of idiots like you!

Joan Lauterbach, Islamic Scholar.

Thomas, Islam teaches against Capitalism as do the Socialist and Communists, that was my point, there is no difference in that arena,,,,however, Islam would go many steps further in controlling by 'killing' those who do not adhere to their teachings(religious, economical and governing) and join them in their 'religion',,,,read it in the Quran,,,,it is my perception that if an Iman would tell a follower to Eradicate me because I speak out against their teachings, then the follower would have to do just what he was told!

Sorry, that is wrong Joan. Anly a weak minded idiot, or radical, would do that.

,,,but you do not believe in what He says? Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father(creator)but by Me"

Yes, I do. You see the sect I belong to accepts Jesus as the son of Allah, also Muhhamed, blessed be they're names. We are not al that different, you and I. Just of different faiths, same politics I believe. Obama is a thief, pure and simple. But then again, most politicians are, are they not. Christianity also teaches against capitalism. Give your riches to the poor so you may pass into heaven comes to mind. Jesus was the ultimate non political person, as we all should be as he taught.

When asked by his followers how others will know them, Jesus responded "by our love". Not, by "our love" we show only those in our family or whom we have a personal interest in, or only Republicans, or only Americans, or only Christians.

@RegalT62...The mind of Christ is that we Love one another, no matter what, however, we are not to condone their lifestyles or their ideologies...

I don't remember Jesus expanding his statement to include that caveat. They will know us "by our love" but you don't have any responsibility to any one you disagree with, anyone poor, or sick (could be contagious), or a different color than you, or not meeting your sexual code. I think that imperfect man added those later - when it was not convenient or too costly to themselves to "love" others.

Hope you two eat good Joan. Enjoy!

Thomas, I see you say you don't support Obama, and I can respect that. I am not exactly square with how much a bland centrist Obama has been this term....Yet, out of curiousity, would you say that people like Joan and a few others here with their schtik:

a) make you more supportive of Romney/Ryan
b) make you more supportive of Obama
c) Make you lose all faith in humanity

I will take c RD. Do not like Romney either to tell the truth. Guess I will be voting Libertarian this time!

lol, the resident RINO speaks.

mike k: TIF proponent, who believes in diverting taxes to private entities. Hypocrisy personified.

Good question. I have heard from several people that if Obama is elected and continues down the path of bankrupting the country there will be riots that will make what happened in Egypt and Lybia look like a walk in the park. Personally although I have never owned a gun in my 63 years, I will immediately go to the nearest gun store and load up with as much ammo and high powered guns they will let me buy.

Hey mike, quick tip: be sure to keep all of your firearms loaded and nearby. Just in case.

To Mike K, just think with your own brains for a second. If Obama is reelected, who will start riots? The rich? Romney supporters? Or people who actualy voted for Obama? I don't get your logic. So you are telling me if Obama wins, you will get a gun and participate in riots or will defend yourself against ????? Ghosts? ? Why would the poor go and riot against Obama, are they rceiving all fee goods? I think you need to see an mental expert.

Fanatic - I believe the point that Mike K is trying to make is that if President Obama is reelected and he continues down the same path he has for the last four years (massive debt increases, increased government dependence, government waste, divisiveness, etc) that our economy will collapse. When those who have become dependent on others for survival (i.e. government handouts) or those who feel entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor are suddenly faced with having to support themselves, or a dramatic cut in their handouts, they have a tendency to act out in aggressive or violent ways. In the example of Greece, they are in economic collapse. Desperate people do desperate things and if it means breaking into homes in what is perceived to be 1. their only chance of survival or 2. what they are entitled to, violence can end up being the result. I don't think he is trying to imply that people would riot because he was reelected, just that riots could be the end result of economic collapse directly related to WH policies.

Elizabeth,
Do you recall the path we were on under GWB and the economic collapse at the end of his term?
The last time I checked the stock market, it is dong pretty darn well under Obama. It seems corporate profit is at an all time high.
Why the heck would you think that Obama's policies will lead to collapse when Romney's policies, which are the same as Bush's, have proven that they actually do lead to collapse?

Larry - First, GWB isn't President anymore. He did some good things, some crappy things & a lot of things that I didn't like/agree with. However, he's gone. Get over it. Pulling GWB out of your pocket as some sort of defense of President Obama is childish & unproductive. President Obama ran & was elected on a platform of change. He has consistently reinstated programs started by GWB & engaged in behaviors (such as big government spending) that people like me hated about GWB all the while pointing his finger backward & sputtering "he did it first", "he started it", blah, blah blah. Enough. Second, the stock market uptrend is mainly the result of the QE program by the fed. This is not a good thing in the long run & could result in inflation & other side effects of bubble bursting. Yes, some big corporations are posting better profits & that is good, but I'm more concerned with small businesses whose financials aren't out there for the public to see. Small business drives our economy. The business owners I know all tell me they are hurting. I guess it pays to be a big political donor like GE and Solyndra. A steady, high unemployment rate as we currently have under this President concerns me. Record debt. Fast & Furious. These are some of the things I judge President Obama's performance on. Not what someone else did. 4 years ago. Romney has a record of success in business. President Obama does not. We need someone familiar with controlling profit & loss, IMHO

Elizabeth,
I am aware of Romney's record of forcing companies to take on massive amounts of debt, cutting jobs (or sending the jobs elsewhere) and reducing employee benefits.
He was highly effective at his job as evidenced by his $250million in wealth, much of which he hides in banks in Switzerland or in the Caymans - so he can avoid taxes that would fund jobs for teachers and police officers.

To your point, he certainly has been successful at his job of sucking profits out companies at the expense of hard working middle-class Americans.. I'm just not sure that success is good for the country overall.

I'm betting the employees of Staples and Sports Authority might disagree with your portrayal of Mitt Romney as an evil capitalist. I prefer to think of it in this analogy: If Mitt Romney is President, that makes the United States Bain Capital, which makes the American taxpayers the investors. Bain Capital made its investors a lot of money. On the flip side, the current administration has the honor of having more people depending on government,less people paying taxes and a larger increase in the National Debt than any other in history. But hey, you seem to be okay with that. If I want to make money, I'd hire a business consultant. If I want to get money from someone else, I'd hire an attorney.

Elizabeth,
"If Mitt Romney is President, that makes the United States Bain Capital, which makes the American taxpayers the investors"

I love this anology! and it's a spectatular idea! America needs investment like never before. I can't wait until Mitt ask his investors (Ie, Tax payers) to contribute gobs of cash to the rebuilding of our national infrasture, national parks, schools and higher education, NASA, scientific research institutions and more!

that is what investors do, right? invest?

Unfortunately, national Investment is not a proposal that I have seen Mittens offering up. Instead, he seems intent on sucking as much money out of America that he possibly can.

Take a gander at Mitt's 2011 tax return. Roughly $3.5 million, about 30% of his income was foreign income. Yeah -we all can have foreign income in our portfolio -it is a global economy. But that's pretty extreme. And our foreign investments are more likely to be milquetoast mutual funds - not the boutique foreign partnership investments in tax haven island natons.

"he seems intent on sucking as much money out of America that he possibly can", says the supporter of a President who has spent more money in 4 years than GWB did in 8. Says the supporter of a President who has promised money that doesn't yet exist on the backs of future generations. Says the supporter of a President who swindled the American taxpayer to pay back his donors via government backed loans.

Beautiful:)

I'd like to issue an advisory for those who may be in the OId State Road area on or around November 6. I've heard from several people that there may be a small group of old men rioting with guns they don't know how to use. It could be worse than the conflict in Lybia, which may or may not be close to Libya.

Rachel, you are very clever! I love your comments - it is so good to laugh in the midst of such diatribes! Keep them coming!

Small group of old men rioting in the Old State Rd. area on Nov. 6th ?

I'm ready...in case they're not just "old."

http://ballwin-ellisville.patch.com/articles/ellisville-to-prepare-for-zombie-apocalypse

Rachel,

This is for you. Your "ALERT" just begs for an Onion-like news story....

Ellisville, Mo. -- 11/07/12 Confused residents along Old State Rd. south of Manchester Rd. woke to the sounds of gunfire outside a gated community of duplexes early Wednesday morning as seemingly even more confused senior residents of the gated community attempted to riot in wake of what they termed, “four more years of socialism. ”

A spokesmen for the group, identified only as mike k stated, “Although I have never owned a gun in my 63 years, after hearing President Obama won a second term, I immediately went to the nearest gun store and loaded up with as much ammo and high powered guns as they let me buy. I had to use Ruby’s Guns in Ellisville. I would have preferred to support corporate fascism by shopping at the TIF supported Walmart in Eureka. I hate that small businesses are sucking profits from major global corporations and that taxpayers are standing up for their rights. Four more years of this nonsense will only embolden them to fight for transparency and accountability.”

cont'd

Who exactly are MIke K and his gang of old men going to shoot anyways? Are they going hunting for the socialists, the liberals or the welfare queens?

The body of a man, believed to be a local building supply contractor, was found dead in a ditch off Old State Rd. two block north of the rioting. The unarmed man was an apparent victim of the uncontrolled and misdirected gunfire rather than a participant.

“That was an accident. This is not progress,” declared mike k when questioned about the dead man.

He immediately admonished the mob and instructed them to aim their weapons only at the “enemy,” though it was not clear who the enemy might be.

In a bizarre twist, some frustrated duplex dwellers then turned their weapons on mike k.

“We don’t need no stinkin’ Hondas,” grumbled one of mike k’s neighbors pointing a high powered weapon loaded with Hornady Zombie Max ammunition at his head.

“We don’t need no stinking Walmart either,” said another angry duplexian.

Sorry Larry,

I'd just stay off Old State Rd. on 11/07

It's a little too "Inside Ellisville" I know.

And for the record it's mike k (little mike) -- not to be confused with Mike K (Big Mike)

you know how we are, always clinging to our guns and religion.

When will Mr. Obama criticize Mideast countries for clinging to guns and religion? BTW, if you're going to call people stupid, spell it right. It's about credibility; it's just better that way...

"you know how we are, always clinging to our guns and religion."

Ah, you've recognized that you're part of the American Taliban have you?

like the quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis say, "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - and a pistol I guess. :)

Actually, here's how it will be wrapped, from the mouths of those wrapping the "gift"...

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

Norman Thomas
Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948.

Dear Scott, Barack Obama is the President of United States of America and not Egypt and other assorted Mideast countries. I am afraid though if Romney is elected, he will be very concerned with the state of countries like Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bermuda and China where his money and investment interests are. BINGO!

8 times in 8 years, is not the same as 8 times per week. And again, there were WAY fewer sources of government income in Reagan's day. Apples & rhubarb.

Note: Those on the payroll of the "takers" in Hunger Games were better off too. By the way, the takers in that scenario weren't businesses, they were government.

Just fiction? Well, it happened for real in 1930's Germany, and again, it was government activity, this time though, it was those businesses, and the rich, who "owed" more of their wealth to their nation. (Sound familiar?)

Scott, guns & religion aren't the same thing. Why don't you think people should have a right to either, if not both?
By the way, one of the first things that happened in 1930's Germany? They disarmed the population.
Here in the US today, 2.5 - 3.1 million crimes per year deterred by a population with guns, 130,000 - 150,000 crimes per year committed with guns. That's anywhere from a 23.85 : 1 to 16.67 : 1 ratio of crimes deterred to crimes committed. So, you aren't against crime, just for an unarmed public.
Maybe we should take away everyone's car too, that way there'd be no drunk drivers.

America has had a mixed economy since the day they signed the Constitution.

Fanatic:
Your shared community pool is NOT FREE-- Is it?
Did the Missouri constitution or Federal Law Force you to pay that community pool?
Do you pay "Union Guard wages"?
Is the fee on that pool use a "Lien" on the property , if someone does not pay the fee?
I wonder what would happen to that pool as the community gets old and unconcerned about the benefits of a pool. Isn't it a problem , that you already support the County Public pools through your Real Estate taxes.
You see, under true socialism, you could not have a "community" pool.

Social Security is a law titlted "Federal Insurance Contribution Act" The Old-age-Survivor-Benefits (OASB) act.
Until 70's or 80's all the money went into a separate untouchable account.
Socialism "steals money. (And that makes you right-on)
You must distingish between being forced to do something vs. having the freedom to choose doing or buying something.
That rule will dictate what is socialistic.

Obama, D’Souza and Anti-Colonialism,,,“My argument,” says D’Souza in “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” “is that it is the anti-colonial ideology of his African father that Barack Obama took to heart.” Once we understand that ideology — once we really know Obama — we will understand a set of policies that, under any other explanatory model, seem contradictory and disunified."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/obama-dsouza-and-anti-colonialism/

Joan, that site is kind of boring.

Try this one: www.lolcats.com

That is unintelligible.

Mr. Revere, what spending cuts did Bush bring in with his tax cuts?

continued: 80%-20% sham!
Anybody "got 2 tens for a Five". An abbott and costello classic.
Well , if a Pizza cost you $10, would you agree to pay someone $$20 that says he will give you back $8, if you do not eat it.
How much did the pizza cost you?
What if you eat it and he still gave you back $8. Now what a deal. Thanks Mr Pizza man. How much did that Pizza cost you? Any better deal?

Need more? What if that Pizza man said pay him $24 for that pizza. (A 20% increase)
He gives you back $8 +$3.20= $11.20 WOW WHAT A COUNTRY.
Thanks Mr Pizza man. I am now paying $12.80 for that pizza that once and still is a $10 Pizza cost to the Pizza guy.
Welcome Back an era of "Abbott and Costello" audience.
Now all we have to do is decide "who's on First"

Caffeinated:
It's a "Politician on Steroids" statement.
In the words of that great Bill Clinton.
It depends on what "You" Is.

Your silence in response to my question:

"Mr. Revere, what spending cuts did Bush bring in with his tax cuts?"

is correct. If you're working on a lesson for us, please include this:

When revenues are cut but spending is not, the deficit increases. Bush 43 did that, and therefore increased the deficit. Obama inherited that deficit and the mounting interest that we pay on it.

If you have any questions or need more detail, please read this, and its references, first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

Carol,
you have no idea what freedom is. Healthcare is not a freedom, it is a fundamental part of any civilized nation. Exceptions are Taliban, Apes and you-likes.

How would Romneycare for the USA be different from Obamacare?

Sensible:
Why don't you go live in MASS-Chus.
Then, you can answer your own question.
There is no such thing as Romneycare for the USA!

Do you understand anything about math? There are four key components: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Here's a link that might shed some light on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

Dear Paul Revere.
1. Do you think that Insurance companies were making less than 20% gross profit before Obamacare was signed into law?
2. Who is determining the level of premium increases now and how as this done prior to Obamacare?
3. And one more, who is the death "panel now"??

Wrong again, Mr. Revere.

"There is no such thing as Romneycare for the USA!"

That is YOUR phrase:
"Romneycare for the USA will actually be voted by the congress. It will be truly a bi-partisan DEM-GOP agreement for ALL the People, not just a few."

I'm not surprised that you want to forget you ever said that. You went on to say:
"Ted Kennedy did force Governor Romney to sign the Mass health law."
There's a link below if you want to read it again.

Enough of your trying to weasel out of the question. Can you answer it? Do you know what Romney would replace Obamacare with?

I don't see how you could, because Romney isn't telling us. But you seem to know it all. Enlighten us.

http://ladue-frontenac.patch.com/articles/red-arch-survey-more-support-for-todd-akin-to-stay-in-senate-race

Mr. Revere,

I honestly cannot decide what you believe in, Socialism or Capitalism. You argue against the 80/20 rule, admitidly a Socalistic rule, however you go on to express your frustration that they can legally increase your health insurance, admitidly a Capitalistic rule.

There are no laws that a clothing store cannot raise the cost of clothing either. Would you have a law put in place to address that?

John Adams: Are you for Real? LOL!
The 80-20 rule is 100% Socialism. The worse and the 1st attempt in this USA to Level a Federal Law on any Private Industry. All Health Insurance companies have the same rule now. There is No more Competition to operate "efficiently" under the 80-20- rule. Once competition is removed--Prices are sky-bound.
(That's how our Public School Unions operate) Get It!
That is the big difference.

Revere - Do you even know what the 80/20 rule is? It means 80% of your business typically comes from 20% of your customers.

mike, are you a brother of congresman Joe "you lie" Wilson? That question was resolved two years ago and you are the only one left who did not hear the answer.

Why should I pay for your mom's surgery, mike? Socialist.

You wouldn't, she has insurance but under Obama's free care for all deadbeats and illegals program, she will never get timely access to the hospital and/or surgeon because Obama's death panels will place her down the priority list due to her advanced age. That's why Canadians come to the United States for major surgery since if they waited the 4-6 months in the que for the "free surgery" they would be dead by the time it was their turn.

Mike, you are right on,,,that is where euthanasia comes in,,,Those who think that this is good probably attended high school from the 70's up to the present where students were taught this view in class exercises sometimes called "Life Boat" where the student would choose who could live and who should die according to what they offered to society,,,while talking to my state Senator about these games that I found when our children were still in school, he replied, "that sounds like Nazism",,,as far as those who want to argue, my wise mother once said, "Don't argue with a 'fool"...and the more modern is "Don't feed the TROLLS",,,WNRTYIC

There is no priority list, and (again) you are ignorant of the facts.

It is a consistent source of amazement for me at the willful ignorance and hypocrisy of baby boomers like (little) mike k, and Joan. I know not everyone from your generation is as delusional.

I realize it's not Christian of me to say, but I'm going to enjoy watching your existential suffering on (and after) November 6th. Have either of you considered leaving for a more "free" country after Obama decimates the Man With the Magic Underwear? Perhaps Canada? Oh, that's right.... they're Socialists.

Maybe Mexico? Yikes, too many pre-illegals there right? What to do?

If Bush Tax cuts would have expired in 2010 as originally set, why Did Obama allow them to be continued?
Why is Obama NOW fighting for the extension of the Bush Tax cuts that apply to the Middle-Class?
Do you now see that there must have been many cuts in there very favorable to the middle-class.?
Did Obama lie when he said the Bush Tax cuts were for the Rich?
I personally would conclude the economy has not tanked BECAUSE of the extension of the Bush Tax cuts.
Isn't it great that Obama Inherited the greatest Military in the world and Inherited the Bush Tax Cuts to get him through all the ignorant decisions made by Democrats.
This country IS BETTER OFF TODAY BECAUSE OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS THAT OBAMA INHERITED. They still exist, WHY?

"so Romney and all the wealthy politicians made millions and they still paid mega times over and above that which I have. So they in essence are paying for the 'things' that taxes pay for"

So the wealthy politicians are taking care of you, Joan? Interesting world-view.

I have come to conclude "Obamacare" is exactly like our Mandated "Public School TAXES". Forcing All to Pay for "Education" from Government operated schools is exactly how this Obamacare works.
It Taxes ALL to buy Advance Health care, whether you need it now or not.
Just like public schools, it will run out of control, costings Thousands of Dollars in Additional INCOME TAXES when we file our year end tax returns.

It starts and hooks you early, with little cost, But then BAM! BAM! BAM! You will all be supporting health care for everyone else who claims they cannot afford it.
Welcome a new $10,000 per year Real Estate tax imposed on Every American.
Add that to the already high School tax and people---You will be "SLAVES" to your Government Workers. That's the "NEW SLAVERY" I am screaming about.
All you Public service workers here will eventually be the targets of Big pay cuts when that happens. All because of not listening to Paul Revere warning "SOCIALISM IS HERE".
China feeds on Capitalism. (No innovation) (steal Inventions) (copying hard work discoveries) Europe will fail as soon as America turns more socialistic.
Emphasis on the "worker's rights" and not the Owner's Investment rights is rampant all around us.
And The Question here is :
"ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO"
Reagan was talking to the "PLURAL" YOU. (That means the Country)
Unfortunately, almost all reply in the "selfish You". The "I" word.